The Supreme Court found Presiding Judge Suwerte L. Ofrecio of Branch 6, Family Court, Sta. Cruz, Regional Trial Court, Laguna, guilty of gross misconduct constituting violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct under Rule 140, Section 14(a), of the Rules of Court. The Court imposed on her the penalty of suspension from office without salary and other benefits for a period of one year and one day.
The Case
The case arose from an Administrative Complaint filed by AAA, a 13-year-old minor, and her mother, BBB (collectively, complainants), against Judge Ofrecio for gross misconduct, abuse of authority, usurpation of authority, and gross ignorance of the law.
AAA and BBB were the private complainants in Criminal Case No. SC-24718, titled People of the Philippines v. Jimwell De Leon y Salazar, for violation of Section 5(b) of Republic Act No. 7610. The criminal case was raffled to the sala of Judge Ofrecio. In an Order dated August 29, 2019, the RTC-Family Court set the criminal case for arraignment and pre-trial conference on September 3 and 10, 2019.
According to the complaint, during the hearing on September 3, 2019, and prior to the actual arraignment and pre-trial conference, Judge Ofrecio uttered remarks suggesting the accused would be acquitted because the parties allegedly had a relationship. BBB replied to negate the judge's statements. The complainants said Judge Ofrecio made several comments showing predisposition and bias towards the accused even before the criminal case was tried.
After the arraignment and pre-trial proceeding, Judge Ofrecio called AAA for direct examination, which took about 2½ hours. AAA recalled the grueling experience, as she felt humiliated and harassed by the questions of Judge Ofrecio, who seemed to have taken over the direct examination for the prosecution. BBB, who was outside the courtroom, said she could hear Judge Ofrecio continuously interfering with the direct examination conducted by Prosecutor Aldino Aranguren, raising her voice and asking irrelevant questions.
The Issue
The Court resolved whether Judge Ofrecio should be held administratively liable for the charges filed against her — gross misconduct, abuse of authority, usurpation of authority, and gross ignorance of the law — in connection with her handling and questioning of the child witness.
The Ruling
The Court found Judge Ofrecio liable for the serious offense of gross misconduct constituting violations of the 2025 CJCA. The dispositive portion reads:
"ACCORDINGLY, the Court finds respondent Presiding Judge Suwerte L. Ofrecio, of Branch 6, Family Court, Sta. Cruz, Regional Trial Court, Laguna, GUILTY of gross misconduct constituting violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct under Rule 140, Section 14(a), of the Rules of Court. The Court imposes upon Judge Ofrecio the penalty of SUSPENSION from office without salary and other benefits for a period of one year and one day. She is likewise STERNLY WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar offense shall be dealt with more severely."
The Court ordered copies of the Decision furnished to the Office of the Bar Confidant to be appended to the judge's personal record as an attorney, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, and the Office of the Court Administrator for circulation to all courts in the country.
By the Numbers
- A.M. No. RTJ-24-078 (Formerly OCA IPI No. 19-5007-RTJ)
- AAA: a 13-year-old minor and private complainant
- Criminal Case No. SC-24718, for violation of Section 5(b) of Republic Act No. 7610
- Order dated August 29, 2019; hearings set for September 3 and 10, 2019
- Direct examination took about 2½ hours
- Accused was in jail for 17 days
- Penalty: suspension of one year and one day
- Judge Ofrecio is respondent in five other administrative complaints
The Court's Reasoning
The Court held that under Section 19 of A.M. No. 00-4-07-SC, it is the duty of the court to exercise control over the questioning of child witnesses, with the objectives of facilitating the ascertainment of the truth, tailoring the mode of questioning to the child's developmental level, and protecting the child from harassment and undue embarrassment. On this basis, the Court found Judge Ofrecio did not usurp the prosecutorial function and was in fact expressly mandated to propound questions. The Court found no substantial evidence showing wrongful intent or culpable motivation to justify the charges of abuse of authority, usurpation of authority, and gross ignorance of the law.
However, the Court held that Judge Ofrecio's actuations were not a mere lapse in courtroom management nor an isolated instance of intemperate language. As a Family Court judge, she was bound to exercise heightened sensitivity, restraint, and circumspection in handling cases involving children, especially where the child witness is an alleged victim of sexual abuse. Instead, she subjected AAA to humiliating, accusatory, and sexually explicit questioning in open court, contrary to the protective purpose of A.M. No. 00-4-07-SC. Her conduct caused undue embarrassment and distress to the child witness, impaired the dignity of the proceedings, and diminished public confidence in the impartiality, propriety, and competence expected of members of the bench.
The Court noted that while Judge Ofrecio is presently the respondent in five other administrative complaints, their mere pendency cannot be considered an aggravating circumstance absent any final adjudication and imposition of a penalty. Considering the nature and gravity of the offense, the vulnerability of the child witness, the judge's position, and the absence of any mitigating or aggravating circumstance, the Court imposed the penalty of suspension for one year and one day.
Source: Supreme Court Decision, A.M. No. RTJ-24-078 (Formerly OCA IPI No. 19-5007-RTJ).
This report summarizes a public Supreme Court decision and is not legal advice.